Faith and reason

[Age]

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

Nothing dishonest here.

The proof in regards to the 'mind claim' exists within a part of the brain, obviously.

Even you said so "yourself" here "atla".

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

Are you blind, or just stupid?

The proof to the 'mind claim' is within a part of the brain. Well this is what you said and claimed, previously.

Do you not even accept your very own beliefs and/or claims "atla" as proof of things?

[Harbal]

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive as faith becomes meaningless if there is a reason for God. God however said in Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." This means that there is no reason for the existence of God.

When this was written, I don’t think getting people to believe in God, or gods, was an issue, because everyone just did. The objective was to get them to believe in a specific God, so the faith aspect, and the importance of it in gaining God’s favour, was emphasised as an inducement towards that end.

[Atla]

Nothing dishonest here.

The proof in regards to the 'mind claim' exists within a part of the brain, obviously.

Even you said so "yourself" here "atla".

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

Are you blind, or just stupid?

The proof to the 'mind claim' is within a part of the brain. Well this is what you said and claimed, previously.

Do you not even accept your very own beliefs and/or claims "atla" as proof of things?

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion. Yes the grass is green and water is wet, but that didn't tell us anything new.

[Age]

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

Are you blind, or just stupid?

The proof to the 'mind claim' is within a part of the brain. Well this is what you said and claimed, previously.

Do you not even accept your very own beliefs and/or claims "atla" as proof of things?

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

If you say and believe so.

Yes the grass is green and water is wet, but that didn't tell us anything new.

So, you already know that 'the mind' is part of 'the brain', just like you already know that water is wet and thar grass is green, but you still want proof, contradictory, for what you already, supposedly, know.

How do you know those thing are true, if you are still looking for proof of them?

[Atla]

Are you blind, or just stupid?

The proof to the 'mind claim' is within a part of the brain. Well this is what you said and claimed, previously.

Do you not even accept your very own beliefs and/or claims "atla" as proof of things?

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

If you say and believe so.

Yes the grass is green and water is wet, but that didn't tell us anything new.

So, you already know that 'the mind' is part of 'the brain', just like you already know that water is wet and thar grass is green, but you still want proof, contradictory, for what you already, supposedly, know.

How do you know those thing are true, if you are still looking for proof of them?

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

[Age]

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

If you say and believe so.

Yes the grass is green and water is wet, but that didn't tell us anything new.

So, you already know that 'the mind' is part of 'the brain', just like you already know that water is wet and thar grass is green, but you still want proof, contradictory, for what you already, supposedly, know.

How do you know those thing are true, if you are still looking for proof of them?

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

you still are completely and utterly missing what is actually happening and occurring here "atla".

Although I have informed you of many, many times already.

[Atla]

If you say and believe so.


So, you already know that 'the mind' is part of 'the brain', just like you already know that water is wet and thar grass is green, but you still want proof, contradictory, for what you already, supposedly, know.

How do you know those thing are true, if you are still looking for proof of them?

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

you still are completely and utterly missing what is actually happening and occurring here "atla".

Although I have informed you of many, many times already.

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, those are assumptions. My claim is however right.

If you are agreeing that those are your assumptions that you cannot prove, then my claim is right. I wasn't saying you were wrong (or that you were right). I was pointing out that there are assumptions in all our ontologies and epistemologies.

I didn't say that we, humans, can. We have all sorts of limitations we are aware of.

And these form part of the foundations of our belief systems, secular and religious.

Well, I can prove that the mind exists if change exists. I can prove that there are at least two persons, you and another being, therefore solipsism is wrong.

You can't prove to the solipsist there are other minds. You may well be able to make a good argument.

I think we have a good common understanding. Don't we?

Perhaps, perhaps not. And of course this also depends on our memories. My point is that to prove these things we have to use these assumptions.

in your sense that you have done correct deductive work,

Unless otherwise is shown I have done correct deductive work.

No, that's not how that works. It's not 'I am right unless someone else can prove me wrong.'

So, we have to discuss the issue further. What I said that in your opinion is wrong?

Well, first off, do you agree that someone not being able to prove you wrong does not make you right?

Sorry I should have said "is" instead of "seems".

I think 'seems' was accurate.

If reality is intelligible and coherent then the language can explain it as well.

Well there you go, a couple of ifs right from the start. And which language and which user of language?

Any language with comprehensive vocabulary does the job.

Well, again, there was an if, and if that can't be proven. I do understand that you think language(s) is/(are) coherent and intelligible and explain reality well.

If you are waiting for me to disprove that, I don't really need to.

You are reacting as if I am saying your assumptions are wrong.

A lot of people do this. They assume that if someone is saying 'You didn't demonstrate X,' then that someone believes the opposite and somehow must demonstrate that the opposite is true. I think that is confused. It's also not true. My point is that there are unproven assumptions, which seems to be a criterion for you for rational belief...that there are none of those. I am arguing that none of us can do that for all of our assumptions. In fact, that's why they are called assumptions.

I make assumptions. I think we have to. I believe things I cannot prove to others. I think that's part and parcel with the human situation. We don't and can't wait around for proof for everything. Life is ad hoc to some extent.

(even if you are right) And then how do you demonstrate this without language?

We cannot demonstrate complicated subjects without language.

Right. So we are dependent on language being coherent and intelligible and connect to reality the way we think it is TO SHOW that it is like this. We have to assume it is to try to show it is. But that's a problem. Because the assumption is being made in the demonstration. It's not really demosntrated. It is assumed.

My husband is right
Demonstrate that.
Honey, are you right? (asks her husband)
Yup, I am.

The reality is intelligible and coherent in many cases.

You're asserting your assumptions.

Your cup of tea is where you left it so you know where to look at it.

Or my memory is messed up.

We however are not sure about many other things such as the real color of objects, if there is such a thing, whether there are more than two persons in reality (see above), what is the final theory of physics,...

Yes, we are certain of many of our assumptions. That doesn't mean they are proven or can be.

Well, the truth is timeless. Isn't it?

I don't know. That's not my point. My point is it's an assumption.

So tell me what does that verse mean otherwise?

If I make as assertion and you disagree or point out I am making an assumption, it doesn't make any difference at all if I challenge you to show that I am wrong.

In a philosophy context, that's a confused reaction. You're assuming that I am disagreeing with your assumption. You're assuming that you have somehow demostrated X, if I can't demonstrate not X.

My point is not the X is wrong, but that it's an assumption.

Sorry again, I should have said "is" instead of "seems"!

I think seems was more honest.

I know you believe it is, but you haven't proven it.

And so far you really haven't dealt with the begging the question issue. If you need to assume language works to demonstrate language works, there's a problem with that demonstration. IF you think there is a problem if one has premises one can't prove. IF you think that is somehow damning. Same with memory and other issues I've raised. If, on the other hand, you accept that any system of belief, seems to require some assumptions that one cannot prove, then there isn't a problem.

IOW, I think it's fine that you make these assumptions. But it seemed like you were pointing at others for not being able to prove all their assumptions. And also claiming that you can prove all the premises in all your beliefs. THAT is what I think is not true.

Your reaction is 'demonstrate that my assumption is not correct.' That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening.

I'll leave it here. It's been a number of posts and you still haven't responded to my point. You seem to think I bear some onus to prove that language doesn't work and memory doesn't work etc.

I haven't asserted those things.

And me personally I accept that I make assumptions, which not just by definition, I can't prove to others. Who can?

[Age]

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

you still are completely and utterly missing what is actually happening and occurring here "atla".

Although I have informed you of many, many times already.

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

you still are completely and utterly missing what is actually happening and occurring here "atla".

Although I have informed you of many, many times already.

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

The poor soul claims to not have assumptions and beliefs, despite posting them with great regularity. And this has been pointed out to him many a time.

It seems he thinks assertions have no connections with beliefs.

[Age]

Yes, those are assumptions. My claim is however right.

If you are agreeing that those are your assumptions that you cannot prove, then my claim is right. I wasn't saying you were wrong (or that you were right). I was pointing out that there are assumptions in all our ontologies and epistemologies.

I didn't say that we, humans, can. We have all sorts of limitations we are aware of.

And these form part of the foundations of our belief systems, secular and religious.

Well, I can prove that the mind exists if change exists. I can prove that there are at least two persons, you and another being, therefore solipsism is wrong.

You can't prove to the solipsist there are other minds. You may well be able to make a good argument.

I think we have a good common understanding. Don't we?

Perhaps, perhaps not. And of course this also depends on our memories. My point is that to prove these things we have to use these assumptions.

in your sense that you have done correct deductive work,

Unless otherwise is shown I have done correct deductive work.

No, that's not how that works. It's not 'I am right unless someone else can prove me wrong.'

So, we have to discuss the issue further. What I said that in your opinion is wrong?

Well, first off, do you agree that someone not being able to prove you wrong does not make you right?

Sorry I should have said "is" instead of "seems".

I think 'seems' was accurate.

If reality is intelligible and coherent then the language can explain it as well.

Well there you go, a couple of ifs right from the start. And which language and which user of language?

Any language with comprehensive vocabulary does the job.

Well, again, there was an if, and if that can't be proven. I do understand that you think language(s) is/(are) coherent and intelligible and explain reality well.

If you are waiting for me to disprove that, I don't really need to.

You are reacting as if I am saying your assumptions are wrong.

A lot of people do this. They assume that if someone is saying 'You didn't demonstrate X,' then that someone believes the opposite and somehow must demonstrate that the opposite is true. I think that is confused. It's also not true. My point is that there are unproven assumptions, which seems to be a criterion for you for rational belief...that there are none of those. I am arguing that none of us can do that for all of our assumptions. In fact, that's why they are called assumptions.

I make assumptions. I think we have to. I believe things I cannot prove to others. I think that's part and parcel with the human situation. We don't and can't wait around for proof for everything. Life is ad hoc to some extent.

(even if you are right) And then how do you demonstrate this without language?

We cannot demonstrate complicated subjects without language.

Right. So we are dependent on language being coherent and intelligible and connect to reality the way we think it is TO SHOW that it is like this. We have to assume it is to try to show it is. But that's a problem. Because the assumption is being made in the demonstration. It's not really demosntrated. It is assumed.

My husband is right
Demonstrate that.
Honey, are you right? (asks her husband)
Yup, I am.

The reality is intelligible and coherent in many cases.

You're asserting your assumptions.

Your cup of tea is where you left it so you know where to look at it.

Or my memory is messed up.

We however are not sure about many other things such as the real color of objects, if there is such a thing, whether there are more than two persons in reality (see above), what is the final theory of physics,...

Yes, we are certain of many of our assumptions. That doesn't mean they are proven or can be.

Well, the truth is timeless. Isn't it?

I don't know. That's not my point. My point is it's an assumption.

So tell me what does that verse mean otherwise?

If I make as assertion and you disagree or point out I am making an assumption, it doesn't make any difference at all if I challenge you to show that I am wrong.

In a philosophy context, that's a confused reaction. You're assuming that I am disagreeing with your assumption. You're assuming that you have somehow demostrated X, if I can't demonstrate not X.

My point is not the X is wrong, but that it's an assumption.

Sorry again, I should have said "is" instead of "seems"!

I think seems was more honest.

I know you believe it is, but you haven't proven it.

And so far you really haven't dealt with the begging the question issue. If you need to assume language works to demonstrate language works, there's a problem with that demonstration. Same with memory and other issues I've raised.

Look, I think it's fine that you make these assumptions. But it seemed like you were pointing at others for not being able to prove all their assumptions. And also claiming that you can prove all the premises in all your beliefs. THAT is what I think is not true.

Your reaction is 'demonstrate that my assumption is not correct.' That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening.

I'll leave it here. It's been a number of posts and you still haven't responded to my point. You seem to think I bear some onus to prove that language doesn't work and memory doesn't work etc.

I haven't asserted those things.

And me personally I accept that I make assumptions, which not just by definition, I can't prove to others. Who can?

one can only really prove only what they know is True.

[Age]

you still are completely and utterly missing what is actually happening and occurring here "atla".

Although I have informed you of many, many times already.

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

The poor soul claims to not have assumptions and beliefs,

Within just these very few words you have got this absolutely Wrong and Incorrect.

despite posting them with great regularity.

Please do not just allude to them, instead how about being a somewhat courageous individual and list them. Then, be even more courageous by staying around and discussing your presumptions or beliefs here.

Or, are you not capable of doing this, here in this philosophy forum?

And this has been pointed out to him many a time.

And, I have pointed out and shown that absolutely anyone can make a claim alluding to some yet shown thing, but if they do not provide anything that backs up and supports said claim, then what is, supposedly, being pointed out is really nothing but an unsubstantiated claim and/or accusation.

It seems he thinks assertions have no connections with beliefs.

Just so you become aware "promethean75" this is another Truly Wrong and Incorrect assumption of yours here.

It is like these people, like this one, here did not actually read and comprehend and understand what I actually write, and mean, here.

[bahman]

Yes, those are assumptions. My claim is however right.

If you are agreeing that those are your assumptions that you cannot prove, then my claim is right. I wasn't saying you were wrong (or that you were right). I was pointing out that there are assumptions in all our ontologies and epistemologies.

Well, I start my claim with "if". therefore it is correct.

I didn't say that we, humans, can. We have all sorts of limitations we are aware of.

And these form part of the foundations of our belief systems, secular and religious.

It is not certain that we can, we might be able to find the truth. Who knows!?

Well, I can prove that the mind exists if change exists. I can prove that there are at least two persons, you and another being, therefore solipsism is wrong.

You can't prove to the solipsist there are other minds. You may well be able to make a good argument.

Everything starts with a good argument. They cannot prove that there are no other minds, they just assume. I can prove that there are at least two minds.

I think we have a good common understanding. Don't we?

Perhaps, perhaps not. And of course this also depends on our memories. My point is that to prove these things we have to use these assumptions.

Yes, perhaps. But we ask questions wherever there is a misunderstanding or lack of good understanding. So I think we are doing alright.

in your sense that you have done correct deductive work,

Unless otherwise is shown I have done correct deductive work.

No, that's not how that works. It's not 'I am right unless someone else can prove me wrong.'

So, we have to discuss the issue further. What I said that in your opinion is wrong?

Well, first off, do you agree that someone not being able to prove you wrong does not make you right?

Well, people might not be intelligent enough to find a gap in an argument. So yes, that is possible and that does not make my argument correct.

Sorry I should have said "is" instead of "seems".

I think 'seems' was accurate.

Well, if you want me to prove that specific language is perfect in the sense that it is functional and can always convey ideas between individuals precisely then I have no argument for that.

If reality is intelligible and coherent then the language can explain it as well.

Well there you go, a couple of ifs right from the start. And which language and which user of language?

Any language with comprehensive vocabulary does the job.

Well, again, there was an if, and if that can't be proven. I do understand that you think language(s) is/(are) coherent and intelligible and explain reality well.

If you are waiting for me to disprove that, I don't really need to.

You are reacting as if I am saying your assumptions are wrong.

A lot of people do this. They assume that if someone is saying 'You didn't demonstrate X,' then that someone believes the opposite and somehow must demonstrate that the opposite is true. I think that is confused. It's also not true. My point is that there are unproven assumptions, which seems to be a criterion for you for rational belief...that there are none of those. I am arguing that none of us can do that for all of our assumptions. In fact, that's why they are called assumptions.

I make assumptions. I think we have to. I believe things I cannot prove to others. I think that's part and parcel with the human situation. We don't and can't wait around for proof for everything. Life is ad hoc to some extent.

Again, that depends if the reality is intelligible and coherent. If yes, then the reality can be explained by perfect language well. I am not saying that we humans can or whether our language is perfect enough.

(even if you are right) And then how do you demonstrate this without language?

We cannot demonstrate complicated subjects without language.

Right. So we are dependent on language being coherent and intelligible and connect to reality the way we think it is TO SHOW that it is like this. We have to assume it is to try to show it is. But that's a problem. Because the assumption is being made in the demonstration. It's not really demosntrated. It is assumed.

My husband is right
Demonstrate that.
Honey, are you right? (asks her husband)
Yup, I am.

Well, that depends if the reality is coherent and intelligible again. If yes then all assumptions can be proven to be true. Otherwise, we have problems with assumptions.

The reality is intelligible and coherent in many cases.

You're asserting your assumptions.

Your cup of tea is where you left it so you know where to look at it.

Or my memory is messed up.

Your memory might be messed up but that does not change the reality, of where your cup of tea is.

So tell me what does that verse mean otherwise?

If I make as assertion and you disagree or point out I am making an assumption, it doesn't make any difference at all if I challenge you to show that I am wrong.

In a philosophy context, that's a confused reaction. You're assuming that I am disagreeing with your assumption. You're assuming that you have somehow demostrated X, if I can't demonstrate not X.

My point is not the X is wrong, but that it's an assumption.

I understand what you are saying but I simply asked for a simple alternative about the meaning of the verse. Do you have any other interpretation?

[bahman]

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive as faith becomes meaningless if there is a reason for God. God however said in Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." This means that there is no reason for the existence of God.

When this was written, I don’t think getting people to believe in God, or gods, was an issue, because everyone just did. The objective was to get them to believe in a specific God, so the faith aspect, and the importance of it in gaining God’s favour, was emphasised as an inducement towards that end.

I agree with what you said!

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, those are assumptions. My claim is however right.

OK. So, iow we have an argument with premises that are taken as a given and not demonstrated.

Well, I start my claim with "if". therefore it is correct.

Ibid.

But you will also have other 'ifs' involved around memory, the relations between language and reality and so on. But perhaps you can notice all the assumptions, yes, and place them in conditional form.

And then there are still beliefs without proof. Just as the religious have.